George Clifford Swan v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE
DIVISION II
CACR06-1491
June 13, 2007
GEORGE CLIFFORD SWAN
APPELLANT
v.
AN APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR-05-626-4]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
HONORABLE THOMAS LYNN WILLIAMS,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
Following a show-cause hearing, the Garland County Circuit Court found that
appellant George Swan violated the terms of his probation by failing to report. The trial
court revoked Swan’s probation and sentenced him to serve ten years in the Arkansas
Department of Correction. On appeal, Swan argues that the trial court abused its discretion
when it revoked his probation and sentenced him to serve ten years in the Arkansas
Department of Correction. We affirm.
In order to revoke probation or a suspension, the trial court must find by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant inexcusably violated a condition of that
probation or suspension. Harris v. State,
Ark. App.
,
S.W.3d
(Apr. 4, 2007).
The State bears the burden of proof but need only prove that the defendant committed one
violation of the conditions. Id. The State’s burden is not as great in a revocation hearing;
therefore, evidence that is insufficient for a criminal conviction may be sufficient for
revocation. See Bedford v. State, 96 Ark. App. 38,
S.W.3d
(2006). Because the
determination of a preponderance of the evidence turns on questions of credibility and the
weight to be given testimony, we defer to the trial judge’s superior position. Haley v. State,
96 Ark. App. 256,
S.W.3d
(2006).
During the show-cause hearing, the trial court heard the following evidence. Mandy
Harper, a probation/parole officer with the Department of Community Corrections, testified
that according to Swan’s records he was told to report on March 3, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. Swan
admitted that he failed to report on March 3. He said that he thought he was supposed to
report on March 10 but later learned that it was March 3.
As stated above all the State needed to prove was one violation. Harris, supra. The
State showed that Swan failed to report, and that was sufficient to sustain the revocation of
Swan’s probation. Accordingly, we hold that the decision to revoke Swan’s probation was
not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence and we affirm.
Affirmed.
G LADWIN and M ARSHALL, JJ., agree.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
